Wow, tough one there. Since that image is linked every time, then you just have to look at what links here.

Of course, they could just delete the image, but hey, where's the fun in that?

Hell, the only legitimate link to the picture is in a character article.

Seriously, with all of the articles Wikipedia is missing, do they really need such an in depth study in to SpongeBob Squarepants? I mean, I like the show, but come on now. Don't we call such things Spongecruft?

ownage

Mon 20th March 2006, 5:46am

ya, wikipedia has an article for every spongebob episode, so someone on wikipedia is definately into the practice of Spongecruft.

That's not too unusual. As long as the cruft is "notable", it gets a good deal of article space. Look at all their detailed articles on Pokemon, for instance. That kinda crap doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

That's part of the reason I think that a series of interconnected wikis, each specializing on a specific topic or point of view, would be far more useful and maintainable. At some point in the near future, I believe that WikiDom will catch on, and Wikipedia will fall by the wayside as a better model comes into play.

Golbez

Mon 20th March 2006, 10:26am

QUOTE(Blu Aardvark @ Mon 20th March 2006, 5:16am)

QUOTE(ownage @ Sun 19th March 2006, 9:46pm)

ya, wikipedia has an article for every spongebob episode, so someone on wikipedia is definately into the practice of Spongecruft.

That's not too unusual. As long as the cruft is "notable", it gets a good deal of article space. Look at all their detailed articles on Pokemon, for instance. That kinda crap doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

That's part of the reason I think that a series of interconnected wikis, each specializing on a specific topic or point of view, would be far more useful and maintainable. At some point in the near future, I believe that WikiDom will catch on, and Wikipedia will fall by the wayside as a better model comes into play.

I think episode guides, and maybe even pokemon lists, would be excellent candidates for moving over to WikiBooks.

Lir

Mon 20th March 2006, 12:04pm

QUOTE(Golbez @ Mon 20th March 2006, 4:26am)

I think episode guides, and maybe even pokemon lists, would be excellent candidates for moving over to WikiBooks.

What is the point of that? Its not like Wikipedia's Pokemon articles get in the way of other articles, its just that, for some inane reason, the people in charge of Wikipedia (such as Raul) are big Pokemon fans, and not as fond of more, academic, subjects.

blissyu2

Mon 20th March 2006, 12:17pm

Well, personally, I'm all for cruft articles. I have no problem with them.

However, what I have a problem with is that other articles that are far more notable are being deleted. We had a famous politician deleted a while back, purely because he wrote the article about himself. The argument was that it was a "vanity" article, yet he was actually quite famous and well known. So if its vanity, sure, forbid him from editing it, but still have the article. But more realistically, he of course is an expert on himself. He's biased, yes, but he's still an expert.

Now, I could tolerate that kind of an article being deleted on the basis of non-notoriety if we didn't have all of this cruft stuff. But you know, compare a famous politician who stood in federal parliament for 3 terms, got record votes, and caused major controversy with his platform against the major parties to uh, the philosophy of Squdward, one of Spongebob Squarepants' characters.

The issue isn't so much whether or not the Squidward article should be deleted. Rather, its a matter of priorities.

Students are quite likely to be set tasks to talk about the green movement in Australia, and hence use Wikipedia for that. The likelihood that they would be set an assignment to discuss the philosophy of Squidward is somewhat smaller.

Of course, discussing politicians is boring. Squidward is fun. And I think perhaps that was the motivation behind it. Its because in the end we have volunteers, not paid editors. They are going to want to include things that they find to be fun. How many people find the nitty gritty of federal politics to be interesting? A few, but not many. Its the stuff of assignments, and the kind of thing where Wikipedia could be of real benefit. But try to find someone who really wants to write about such things - other than the guy writing his own article, you'd struggle to find anyone who was interested enough in it to bother. They'd rather spend their time writing Squidward.

And this of course brings us to another broad criticism of Wikipedia - that the community element means that certain more "fun" articles get created, and kept, in preference to more boring, tiresome articles.

Of course, a real encyclopaedia would be full to the brim of boring articles, and have very few fun things.

I like Blu's idea. I think that could work. All of that stuff could be on a Spongebob Squarepants wiki.

Golbez

Mon 20th March 2006, 12:32pm

QUOTE(Lir @ Mon 20th March 2006, 7:04am)

QUOTE(Golbez @ Mon 20th March 2006, 4:26am)

I think episode guides, and maybe even pokemon lists, would be excellent candidates for moving over to WikiBooks.

What is the point of that? Its not like Wikipedia's Pokemon articles get in the way of other articles, its just that, for some inane reason, the people in charge of Wikipedia (such as Raul) are big Pokemon fans, and not as fond of more, academic, subjects.

Which is why I said "maybe even". I'm not a fan of the idea on its face, but I might be able to be convinced. Moving episode lists/guides would benefit all parties, by letting them expand them greatly, insert commentary, etc., and cause more interaction between Wikibooks and Wikipedia.

QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Mon 20th March 2006, 7:17am)

However, what I have a problem with is that other articles that are far more notable are being deleted. We had a famous politician deleted a while back, purely because he wrote the article about himself. The argument was that it was a "vanity" article, yet he was actually quite famous and well known. So if its vanity, sure, forbid him from editing it, but still have the article. But more realistically, he of course is an expert on himself. He's biased, yes, but he's still an expert.

Technically that would count as original research, unless he's citing other works.

guy

Mon 20th March 2006, 12:56pm

QUOTE(Golbez @ Mon 20th March 2006, 12:32pm)

Technically that would count as original research, unless he's citing other works.

Is he allowed to cite say his "Who's Who" entry, even if he wrote it himself?

Golbez

Mon 20th March 2006, 1:05pm

QUOTE(guy @ Mon 20th March 2006, 7:56am)

QUOTE(Golbez @ Mon 20th March 2006, 12:32pm)

Technically that would count as original research, unless he's citing other works.

Is he allowed to cite say his "Who's Who" entry, even if he wrote it himself?

I would say no, somewhere along the line it has to be someone other than you, because it's still technically original research and non-verifiable. If it were verifiable by another source, then we would link that and there's no problem. But you saying it about yourself, we have no way of citing that or providing a path to prove it. You could be lying through your teeth so far as we know.

Well, um, that particular politician linked mainly to newspaper articles about himself - it had no original research in it at all, and that wasn't the issue. The issue was WP:AUTO. Oh, and because people think its more interesting to read about Squidward than to read about some boring politician.

Golbez

Tue 21st March 2006, 1:06am

QUOTE(ownage @ Mon 20th March 2006, 4:53pm)

that's just 2 TV shows, i wouldn't be surprised if wikipedia has an article for every epsiode of majority of TV show post 1990

Not only that you websites dont work but you are connecting other parties with me, you stupid idiots, instead of being happy about our contribution, read the discussion and you post names, emails, tels, what else, shame on you, HYPOCRITES GOING AGAINST THEIR OWN POLICIES, EVEN IF YOU FIND THE REAL NAMES, IT WILL NOT MATTER, WE WANTED TO RESOLVE IT IN A PEACEFUL WAY, YOU CHOSE WAR, WE ARE GOING UNDERGROUND, YOU WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO TRACK US TRASH... HEROSTROTUS IS BIGGER JERK THAN ALL, BUT WE ARE FINDING HIM SOON AND IN DUE TIME... YOU WILL NEVER FIND US! all the PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST US MAY THEY BE CURSED FOREVER!amen! AND COMING SOON George Reeves Project/Herostratus ALL THE PRIVATE INFO ON THIS TRASH!

Golbez

Wed 22nd March 2006, 7:54pm

Dead link. And wow, some people are just a waste of bandwidth.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.